LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
August 16/2018
Compiled & Prepared by: Elias Bejjani

The Bulletin's Link on the lccc Site
http://data.eliasbejjaninews.com/newselias18/english.august16.18.htm

News Bulletin Achieves Since 2006
Click Here to enter the LCCC Arabic/English news bulletins Achieves since 2006

Analysis/In Nearing Deal With Israel on Gaza, Hamas Wins Achievements Through Military Resistance
عاموس هاريل من الهآررتس: مع اقتراب الصفقة مع إسرائيل حماس تحقق انجازات من خلال المقاومة العسكرية
Amos Harel/Haaretz/August 15/18
http://eliasbejjaninews.com/archives/66762/amos-harel-haaretz-in-nearing-deal-with-israel-on-gaza-hamas-wins-achievements-through-military-resistance-%D8%B9%D8%A7%D9%85%D9%88%D8%B3-%D9%87%D8%A7%D8%B1%D9%8A%D9%84-%D9%85%D9%86-%D8%A7%D9%84/
Netanyahu, who has no clear goal on Gaza, prefers to be weak on terror and not find himself in an endless war in the Strip.
The two sides clashing in the Gaza Strip, Israel and Hamas, seemed to be closer on Tuesday evening than anytime during the past few months to “the small arrangement” – a full cease-fire that includes a halt to all acts of violence, alongside the first easing of the blockade on Gaza.
If the efforts to broker the deal by the United Nations and Egyptian intelligence work out, and optimism in Israeli defense circles could be heard for the first time on the matter Tuesday evening, then it is possible that quiet could return to the border between Israel and Gaza for at least a few months.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has examined the possibility of calling early elections over the past few days, because of the coalition crisis over the law on drafting the ultra-Orthodox, along with other considerations. A stable cease-fire in Gaza would allow Netanyahu to conduct the election campaign from a position of relative stability, without having to continually fight back against the accusations that he has abandoned the residents of the south to rockets and incendiary kites.
The negative side of the understandings with Hamas for Netanyahu is that he is in practice negotiating with Hamas. His denials haven’t convinced anyone. Netanyahu knows exactly to whom the mediators are delivering his answers. It has happened in the past too, under Ehud Olmert’s government after Operation Cast Lead, and on Netanyahu’s watch too, after both Pillar of Defense and Protective Edge. But it seems that this time it is even clearer and more unforgiving.
It will also be a victory from Hamas’ point of view. The organization began escalating the tensions along the border with mass protests on March 30, from a position of deep distress. The understandings are expected to ease the Israeli pressure on the Gaza Strip and give Hamas breathing room. At the same time, the understandings promise Hamas another achievement: being identified as an important and legitimate partner for regional agreements. And Hamas achieved all this through military resistance, in complete opposition to the line taken by its rival Palestinian camp, Fatah and the Palestinian Authority.
The step that is now coming together was woven by the United Nations special envoy for the Middle East peace process, Nickolay Mladenov, with the active help of Egyptian intelligence. The latest round of violence, which came last week, sped up the renewal of contacts and may have even advanced the willingness of the two sides to reach an agreement.
It seems that Netanyahu has chosen the least bad option. It is very possible he will spare the lives of dozens of Israeli soldiers and civilians, who could very well have died in a wide-scale military conflict in Gaza in the next few months. Because Netanyahu never set a clear and attainable goal for himself for an attack on Gaza, he is willing to endure criticism from both the left and right on his demonstration of weakness in the face of terrorism, and not find himself in the middle of a war whose end, the how and why of it, would be a riddle to him.
Education Minister Naftali Bennett is once again passing Netanyahu on the right. On Tuesday evening, he came out openly against the agreement with Hamas and warned about awarding a prize for terror. Bennett presented a different solution to the security cabinet: An attack on Hamas entailing a certain amount of risk, but in his opinion one that would not require a ground offensive inside the Gaza Strip. For now, his is a minority position and the proposal is going back into the drawer. But if the agreement fails, his plan will once again be put on the table – and Bennett will be able to say, “I told you so,” as happened four years ago with the attack tunnels from Gaza. This is an issue that will certainly come up during the election campaign.
On Wednesday morning, at the end of what promises to be three full days of quiet, Israel will expand the area allowed for fishing along the Gaza coast and remove the restrictions it imposed recently on the entry of goods into the Gaza Strip through the Kerem Shalom crossing. The next test will come Friday, when Hamas is supposed to keep its promise to prevent violent protests and stop the incendiary kites and balloons. Later, other means of easing restrictions on Gaza will be made that have not yet been announced.
Potentially, even more is at hand: An agreement on the matter of the Israeli missing and captives in Gaza, and even a reconciliation agreement between the rival Palestinian camps. The prisoner exchange will be difficult to achieve because of Hamas’ demand to release dozens of those who were released in the Gilad Shalit prisoner swap but rearrested by Israel in the summer of 2014. It seems the Shin Bet security service remains firmly opposed to re-releasing them. And as for the reconciliation, the PA still opposes it strongly and even contributed to the tensions because of the sanctions it opposed in Gaza against Hamas. Meanwhile, senior PA and Hamas officials continued to exchange accusations over the past few days.

Osama bin Laden’s mother condemns the Muslim Brotherhood
Abdullah bin Bijad Al-Otaibi/Al Arabiya/August 15/18
For the first time in many years, the mother of Osama bin Laden has broken her silence and spoken about her relationship with her son. As a mother, she doesn’t believe anything bad about her son even if he was the leader of Al-Qaeda, the man who spread terrorism and destruction.
The most important feature of Mrs. Aliya Ghanem’s talk relates to how the Muslim Brotherhood recruited her son when he was studying at the King Abdul-Aziz University in Jeddah, specifically by Palestinian Brotherhood member Abdullah Azzam, the spiritual father of the Arab Afghans, and the leader and mentor of bin Laden.
She believes that her son was “brainwashed in his twenties and became a different person”. What Osama’s mother does not know is that Abdullah Azzam wasn’t the only bad influence, but this transformation was also brought about by Ikhwan al-Hijaz (the Brotherhood of the Hijaz), the most active branch of the two other organizations affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood in Saudi Arabia which are ‘the Brotherhood of Riyadh’, or the so-called ‘General Command’ as well and the ‘Az-Zubayr Brotherhood’.
Muslim Brotherhood’s brainwashing
The interview by bin Laden's mother have been carried out by the British newspaper The Guardian and was translated by many Arab media outlets. It is an important confession because his mother watched him as a young boy and later as a young man and witnessed the extent of the Muslim Brotherhood’s influence over him and of brainwashing him and the degree of emotional isolation he underwent because of the radical teachings about "Hakimiyyah" and "Jahiliyyah, the alleged Western conspiracy against Islam and other dubious ideas which first mentally brainwashed him and then made him establish Al-Qaeda, the most dangerous terrorist organization in the last three decades.
Bin Laden’s mother witnessed the extent to which the Muslim Brotherhood influenced her son and the degree of emotional isolation he underwent because of the radical teachings.
Many have written about bin Laden's relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood; his relationship with Abdullah Azzam and the Brotherhood of the Hijaz is well-known. He was later ousted from the organization after he dared go to Afghanistan and stay there although the orders were to deliver aid and return. Ayman al-Zawahiri mentioned this in a series of video-broadcasts following the assassination of bin Laden.
After Al-Qaeda became stronger and attracted more followers. Mustafa Mashhur, the Muslim Brotherhood’s general guide, who is also a prominent student of Sayyid Qutb, met bin Laden and told him: “You left your brothers and you shall return to your brothers”. However, bin Laden refused the offer because he believed that he was more influential than the Brotherhood.
Source of distorted beliefs
It is important for researchers and experts to acknowledge the dissimilarities between political Islam groups and violent religious organizations, but the most important point is to realize that they all derive from the Muslim Brotherhood's discourse, which is the founding basis for all misinterpretation of Islam for the last nine decades.
The spread of the Muslim Brotherhood’s rhetoric has been the greatest threat to Islam as a religious that guides and exploited the latter as a tool to attain power, while only focusing on their selective interpretation of ‘Sharia’ and abolishing the other foundations of the religion and its branches.
Al-Qaeda's alliance with Iran has been an extension of the Muslim Brotherhood’s ideology which glorifies Khomeini’s revolution. Al-Qaeda also allied itself with Qatar and Turkey's fundamentalist project in the region. Al-Qaeda was keen over hiding this alliance from ideological and extremist followers but after it was exposed, it began to issue lengthy explanations via the Sururist Movement in Saudi Arabia and others.
For example, most recently there has been the book, ‘Muslims and Western Civilization’, supposedly written by Safar Al-Hawali. I believe that this is the work of a different Sahawist group, for it appears that Safar al-Hawali and Nasser al Omar targeted the Shiites and Sufism inside Saudi Arabia to provoke sedition and chaos within the country, while they remain convinced of bin Laden’s alliance with Iran.
Mrs. Aliya Ghanem finally appeared in the pictures wearing high-end clothes that reflect a fine taste while giving a testimony to history and the world about the Muslim Brotherhood and the ideology that brainwashed her son at an early age and deceived him, which is the method of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Donald Trump’s message to grey allies
Mashari Althaydi/Al Arabiya/August 15/18
“You can't have your cake and eat it too” is a famous western proverb.
This saying today applies on Turkey under the leadership of Recep Tayyip Erdogan. It also somehow applies to Qatar’s current authority.
The two countries have alliance ties with the US. A feature of these ties is the presence of military bases. In Qatar, there are purely American bases in Al-Udeid and Al-Sailiya. And in Turkey, there is a base for the NATO that’s led by Washington, i.e. the famous Incirlik Air Base. This relationship is not only limited to this sensitive military aspect but there is also the inclusion of these two countries under the banner of the global camp led by Washington against the ambitions, purposes and acts of major countries, primarily Russia and China.
Regarding Russia, the American confrontation with it includes the security, military, political and media aspects. As for China, the confrontation’s first headline is economical, without denying the confrontation’s other facets.
The dispute between Erdogan and Trump is not limited to the issue of the American pastor jailed in Turkey. This is the headline of the crisis but the content is Erdogan’s act of taking Turkey towards the camp that opposes Washington.
Of course there are “margins” to the activity of Washington’s allies with Russia and China even if this upsets the Americans. The picture however is different when work goes beyond acting within the framework of these margins to working like enemies and not like allies. In this case, only in this case, this or that state must select the type of relation with Washington.
Erdogan’s Turkey is going through a critical phase due to the decline of the local currency after American President Donald Trump intensified sanctions. The worse is yet to come. Populist President Erdogan continues to threaten the US with woes and with the worst!
The dispute between Erdogan and Trump is not limited to the issue of the American pastor jailed in Turkey. This is the headline of the crisis but the content is Erdogan’s act of taking Turkey towards the camp that opposes Washington. The defiance of Erdogan and his men to the sanctions on Iran was a flagrant form of empty defiance.
So now, who will help Erdogan in his financial and economic storm?
Qatar, that cannot go far in provoking the current American administration. It’s said that Erdogan is angry from Doha because it financially let him down as he requested the authorities to “return the favor” after he insolently sided with Qatar in an “Ottoman-like” manner against the Gulf countries, or the most important Gulf states.
Even the ruling Shiite parties in Iraq could not go far in being bias to the faltering Iran under the whip of American sanctions. In the news, the media spokesperson of Iraqi Prime minister Haider al-Abadi confirmed the reports that the latter cancelled his visit to Tehran and which was scheduled for Tuesday and attributed the move to Abadi’s “busy schedule.” Abadi however headed to Turkey on the same day.
The Associated Press quoted Iraqi officials as saying that “Tehran cancelled Abadi’s visit” after he angered Iranian officials following his announcement that his country is committed to American sanctions against Iran last week.
Anyway, the choices have become clear in the era of solid American President Donald Trump. You will no longer claim alliance with the US while you’re in the opposing camp. Perhaps this “playing” worked during the era of “flexible” President Barack Obama.

Will US sanctions force Iran to act like a ‘normal nation?’
Ellen R. Wald/Arab News/August 15, 2018
Given the poor state of Iran’s economy, US sanctions on Iran are probably not necessary. However, they are intended to expedite change in Iran and extinguish any hope the regime had of turning around its economy.
Iran’s religious leaders maintain a devotion to revolutionary ideology, rhetoric and action as a means to justify the regime's continued existence and repression of its people. These revolutionary ideals have prevented Iran from welcoming foreign investors and businesses in the years between sanctions, particularly in the oil and gas sector. As a result, Iran has not been able to improve its struggling energy industry or build other industries in the country. Even before President Donald Trump’s decision in May to reinstate sanctions, the country’s economy was suffering. The new sanctions will ensure that Iran cannot turn around its economy without first improving its behavior in world affairs.
With the reinstated sanctions, Iran’s opportunity to improve its economy has dwindled and a crisis point is being hastened. So far, the US is not granting exemptions to foreign businesses, meaning it is seeking to effectively isolate Iran economically. Few countries and firms are willing to risk antagonizing the US and a seemingly staunch Trump administration, even for cheap Iranian oil. They fear losing the opportunity to do business with the US, which has a much larger market and is the most powerful economic force in the world.
An isolated Iran cannot satisfy its people economically. It is now facing regular and persistent protests against religious laws, poor drinking water, unpopular foreign policy decisions, out-of-control inflation and a failing economy.
However, as the sanctions take effect this month and in November, the key question is: What is America’s goal? In May, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said he asked Iran to “behave like a normal nation.” Some have said the US’ objective should be regime change in Iran, although Washington would probably be satisfied with less. The goal could be a true end to Iran’s nuclear ambitions and missile capabilities, with stringent assurances that were not present in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action agreement.
However, the reference to a “normal nation” could indicate that the US is seeking an end to Iran’s extraterritorial involvement in conflicts and terrorist activity. This would mean that the White House is looking for Iran to halt all support of Hezbollah and Hamas, end Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps activity in Iraq and Syria, and stop its backing of the Houthis in Yemen. Most likely, the Trump administration is being intentionally vague about its goals in order to give the US room to negotiate.
Iran is now facing regular and persistent protests against religious laws, poor drinking water, unpopular foreign policy decisions, out-of-control inflation and a failing economy​
This also explains why Trump offered to meet with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani even before any sanctions came into effect. The goal is to use the economic pain Iran feels to end the threat that the regime poses to its neighbors and to the US. Given the apparent domestic disenchantment with the Iranian regime and the repeated protests and unrest, it is possible that sanctions might lead to regime change, but that is one of the least likely outcomes. The most realistic goal of the sanctions is behavioral change from Iran, coupled with concrete assurances for the global community.
Last week, right after the first round of sanctions came into effect, Rouhani said Iran would talk to the US “right now.” Some took this as a sign of success, because Iran had rejected talks just a few days earlier. However, soon after, Foreign Minister Mohammed Javad Zarif said “there will be no meeting.” From America’s strategic perspective, it is probably better not to meet with Iran right away. It is too early for a rapprochement and Iran has not yet suffered under the sanctions. Strategically, Trump wants Iran to come to the US from a position of need. His statement should be understood as notifying the Iranians that he is ready to talk when Iran is serious about change.
On the topic of a meeting between Trump and Iranian leaders, some in Washington have said that the president should actually meet with Ayatollah Ali Khamenei because it is he who holds the real power in Iran’s bifurcated political system. It is true that, when it comes to foreign affairs, Khamenei is the ultimate arbiter, but in the Iranian system he would not participate in such talks.
Iran’s political system is carefully defined in its constitution and, within that system, Rouhani and Zarif represent Iran in international affairs. Khamenei sets the course of Iranian foreign policy and military moves, but is specifically insulated from day-to-day negotiations and policy implementation. Khamenei sits at the top of a religious hierarchy and must maintain a certain distance from policy and negotiations to preserve the supreme leader’s religiously mandated power. Even though Rouhani could never engage in talks with the US without his approval, it is key to Iran’s political system that Khamenei not be seen directly engaging with the West. Outwardly legitimizing agreements with Washington would implicitly delegitimize Khamenei’s office. In fact, reports now indicate that Khamenei has banned Iranian officials from engaging in direct talks with the US.
The new US sanctions will likely expedite an Iranian economic crisis. There is some potential that they could force behavioral changes and compel Iran to “behave like a normal nation.” However, Iran is used to isolation and its political leaders will try to use the sanctions to rally support for themselves and the Iranian revolutionary movement. If any change is going to happen, we will probably not know until it is imminent.
**Ellen R. Wald, Ph.D. is a historian and author of “Saudi, Inc.” She is the president of Transversal Consulting and also teaches Middle East history and policy at Jacksonville University. Twitter: @EnergzdEconomy

US sanctions push Russia closer to emerging eastern bloc
Dr. Theodore Karasik/Arab News/August 15, 2018
With more than 700 Russians and their companies now under US sanctions, America is punishing Russia for its perfidious behavior toward the West. Moscow has been subjected to successive waves of sanctions that include travel bans, asset freezes and finance and trade restrictions. These sanctions are beginning to bite at the Russian economy and further punishment may affect the ruble's value, pushing Russia further into a recession and breaking the economy in a bid to change Vladimir Putin's behavior.
Sanctioning Russia is not new — it is a regular feature of the US toolkit. The Obama administration imposed sanctions for Russia’s actions in Ukraine and for meddling in the 2016 presidential election. The Trump administration in April sanctioned oligarchs and government officials over the election meddling and other “malign” activities, and now additional sanctions that will begin in late August have been added over the nerve agent attack in the UK. Political leaders, politicians and the state security services have not been exempted from the swinging US sanctions axe.
The latest sanctions cover exports to Russia of items with a potential national security purpose, such as gas turbine engines, electronics and testing and calibration equipment. In turn, Russia is threatening to retaliate by banning sales of Russian engines to NASA, but the head of Roscosmos is planning to meet his US counterpart in the fall. Despite the rancor, space cooperation is likely to continue.
Legally, sweeping new sanctions may follow 90 days later, in November, including a reduction in diplomatic relations, bans on the import of Russian oil and exports of “all other goods and technology” aside from agricultural products, and limits on loans from US banks. The US is required to suspend aviation agreements and stop Russia from issuing new sovereign debt, which may be quite painful to the Russian economy.
There is an ongoing struggle between Donald Trump and his supporters, who want to engage with Russia, and the so-called “deep state” of national security bureaucrats, who are seeking revenge after the November 2016 presidential election
What is happening is that new sanctions, which have followed a path of squeezing Russia tighter, are increasingly a function of American domestic politics. There is an ongoing struggle between Donald Trump and his supporters, who want to engage with Russia, and the so-called “deep state” of national security bureaucrats, who are seeking revenge after the November 2016 presidential election. As the time passes since that election, and with Trump’s behavior toward Putin, especially in Helsinki, the narrative that the president is under Russia’s “influence” is now permanent.
That sentiment is a long-term driver in a chunk of American body politic regardless of whether Trump is president or not. Russia will bear the brunt of angry America for some time to come. One knows the type of sentiment that still resides in Washington about the 444-day American hostage crisis in Iran after four decades. The current situation may be a useful marker to consider how long the palpable anger is likely to last.
Nevertheless, the Trump administration is working with Moscow on a number of issues, regardless of what anti-Trump forces think or demand. Trump can’t weaken sanctions, but nothing can stop the American president from engaging with Moscow on matters of international security. The Helsinki summit, and the channels that set up that meeting, are now in action. A process of lines of communication and de-confliction are now more active than ever.
Syria is the main topic, but there are also other hot-button issues, especially Turkey’s future and the American campaign against Iran. Arms control is also on the table, including extending the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty. All these discussions are intertwined and are increasingly coming under strain because of the White House’s actions against Turkey and the resulting economic damage that is reverberating across markets, including Russia. Moscow sees this American move as a threat to the ruble, which is already undergoing a drop in value back to 2016 levels.
Always proactive, Moscow is taking action. In order to hedge its bets, what is happening now — as a result of the current state of US-Russia relations — is that Moscow is seeing an opportunity to continue the process of moving away from the West and build a protective shield against American sanctions. Russia’s moves include tools that the Kremlin has perfected the use of over the past few years, such as currency swaps and further pushing the ability to transact outside the SWIFT system. It is important to remember that Russia holds one of the largest holdings of gold, which gives the country some additional leverage.
China is also playing a role as the spoiler in the US-Russia relationship by working closely with Moscow on the new geopolitics of the Middle East, Africa and even Latin America, where Russia is making advances at the expense of American infighting. Debt and seizures are the new tools of Eastern trade and they work in most cases. Trump’s sanctions policy, no matter the target country, may find the rate of new subsidiaries that avoid sanctions outpaces the ability for America to chase them down.
Some may argue that this phenomenon is already a fact, but the underestimation of the ability for an array of countries, from China to the UAE to South Africa, that are already creating a new strategic arc of innovation, transport and trade is meant to not only band together but also belong to an emerging supra-economic group that threatens America’s ability to use economic tools effectively.
In 2000, when Putin replaced Boris Yeltsin as president, the Russian vision about US-Russian relations was as clear as it is now. We know Putin thought the collapse of the Soviet Union was the greatest calamity of the 20th century. Now, the Russian president sees the emergence of a new order while the West is confused and failing as the next step. With that prognosis in mind, US-Russia relations are in for a rough ride. The post-Trump, post-Putin future will still be contending with the issues of today and tomorrow.
Importantly, Putin sees himself as not only a designer but also an influencer of the emerging shift in global economics. As more sanctions hit Russia, Iran and other countries, the resulting bloc will begin to unite more and more. And, as Trump is forced to hit out harder and harder against Russia because of US domestic politics and the importance of the November mid-term elections to America’s immediate future, the rhetoric and actions and reactions may be quite testy.
*Dr. Theodore Karasik is a senior adviser to Gulf State Analytics in Washington, D.C. He is a former RAND Corporation Senior Political Scientist who lived in the UAE for 10 years, focusing on security issues. Twitter: @tkarasik

Turkish president’s latest gamble not the right way to tackle economic challenges, say experts
Menekse Tokyay/Arab News/August 15/18
ANKARA: Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has raised the stakes in a diplomatic stand-off between his country and the US with a call to boycott US electronic goods such as iPhone. The call is in retaliation for recent sanctions imposed by Washington over the detention of an American pastor for almost two years. “Whatever we buy from abroad we are going to produce here in better quality and export it. We are going to boycott US electronics,” said Erdogan on Tuesday. “If they have iPhones, there is Samsung on the other side, and we have our own Venus, Vestel here,” he said in a speech to members of his AK Party. The call resulted in a 5 percent increase in the share value of Turkish electronic company Vestel.
However, Erdogan is known for his use of Apple products, with his famous appeal on the night of the July 2016 failed coup — calling on citizens to take to the streets — carried out through FaceTime, an iPhone app.
Sinan Ulgen, a former Turkish diplomat who chairs the Istanbul-based Center for Economics and Foreign Policy, said Erdogan’s latest gamble was not the right way to tackle the country’s economic challenges.
“At this point what is needed is to reassure markets and investors that the government is aware of the difficulties and the structural problems of the Turkish economy,” Ulgen told Arab News. “The president’s combative remarks are more focused on maintaining the support of Turkish public opinion at a time of economic duress. But these remarks also nurture a perception abroad that Ankara is failing to evaluate the needs and essential steps to avoid a more severe economic downturn,” he said.
Turkey’s current account deficit, which has widened to 6.3 percent of GDP, is a chronic problem as the country imports more goods and services than it exports, forcing it to borrow foreign money to make up the difference.
Paul Levin, director of Stockholm University Institute for Turkish Studies, said that any positive effects of patriotic action by tradesmen, retailers and ordinary Turks to defend the lira will be temporary.
“A sustainable response would entail monetary policy actions that convince the markets that Turkish policymakers can be trusted again. The nationalist rhetoric and talk of boycotts hurt more than it helps,” Levin told Arab News. “A cease-fire in the diplomatic spat with the US would be much better.”
Turkey boycotted Italian products in 1998 after the leader of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), Abdullah Ocalan, fled from Syria to Italy, and the Turkish government’s extradition request was rejected by the Italian government. The sanctions led to Turkish Airlines and Alitalia halting Istanbul-Rome flights for two months.
Nursin Atesoglu Guney, dean of the faculty of economics, administrative and social sciences at Bahcesehir Cyprus University, believes that the call for an electronics boycott has a symbolic meaning.
“Turkish people want to show their reaction against the measures that have recently been imposed against Turkey. Beyond its financial aspect, there is currently a psychological war between the two countries through high-level rhetoric,” she told Arab News. It is not known if Turkish tech stores will be forbidden from selling iPhone models, a hugely popular device in the country.
Ebru Baki, an independent economist, underlines the need for structural reforms to address the current account deficit in the country rather than relying on boycotts.
“We are dependent on imports. Even when exporting we need to import some intermediary products. Our exports are not high value added and thus lead to high current account deficit. We need to invest in technology and produce high value-added products,” she said.
“Such a boycott will not hurt Apple. But we have to rebuild ourselves. We need to identify niche sectors, which we can be known for, as South Korea has done in the past.
“We also need an income distribution reform and to invest in agriculture to decrease the current account deficit. We are known for our agricultural diversity, yet are importing food. Now food prices will increase, leading to higher inflation,” she said.
According to Baki, it is not feasible to cut off Turkey’s young population from US technology.
“For this to happen, one should produce electronic goods of the same quality as Apple. This call has symbolic meaning, but it cannot be applied practically among young people, who would prefer high-quality technology,” she said.

Qatar: France's Generous Financer of Mosques
Giulio Meotti/Gatestone Institute/August 15/18
http://eliasbejjaninews.com/archives/66768/giulio-meotti-qatar-frances-generous-financer-of-mosques-%D8%B3%D8%AE%D8%A7%D8%A1-%D9%88%D9%83%D8%B1%D9%85-%D9%82%D8%B7%D8%B1-%D9%81%D9%8A-%D8%AA%D9%85%D9%88%D9%8A%D9%84-%D9%85%D8%B9%D8%B8%D9%85/
The Great Mosque of Poitiers, for instance, sits in the vicinity of the site of the Battle of Tours, where Charles Martel, ruler of the Franks, stopped the advancing Muslim army of Abdul al-Rahman in the year 732.
"We have funds from abroad... it comes from the faithful of Saudi Arabia and Qatar," says Ahmed Jamaleddine, treasurer of the Amal association, which is behind the construction of "the Great Mosque of Saint-Denis." Saint-Denis also happens to be home to a famous Cathedral, the Basilica of Saint-Denis -- which contains the royal necropolis where many of France's kings are buried.
The Emir of Qatar appears to have a far greater grasp of French history than many French do.
Qatari activism in France should greatly worry those who care about the stability of European democracies. For years, Qatar has been the focus of many claims about its Islamic fundamentalism and its alleged support for the Muslim Brotherhood, Iran, ISIS, elements of al-Qaeda, Hamas, the Taliban and other Islamic extremists.
Qatar's emir, Tamim bin Hamad al Thani, recently provided solid proof that France is a privileged field of projection for his country, which, for more than a year, has had a severe boycott imposed on it by its Gulf neighbors. A July meeting in Paris between the Emir of Qatar and French President Emmanuel Macron was the third held in just a few months. Contracts worth more than 12 billion euros have already been signed, making Qatar the third largest French customer in the Gulf after Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Qatar, however, casts its shadow not only over the French economy.
Money from Qatar finances many of the "mega-mosques" in France. These are large structures with minarets -- not the improvised mosques that have sprung up in garages, storefronts and cultural centers. The Great Mosque of Poitiers, for instance, sits in the vicinity of the site of the Battle of Tours (also known as the Battle of Poitiers), where Charles Martel, ruler of the Franks, stopped the advancing Muslim army of Abdul al-Rahman in the year 732.
The imam of Poitiers today, Boubaker El-Hadj Amor, announced that the mosque, with a prayer hall for 700 faithful and a minaret of 22 meters, was made possible thanks to money from the organization "Qatar Charity." In a video, the imam of Poitiers admits to having benefited from Qatari funds to continue the mosque's construction, interrupted for several years due to lack of funding from local believers. "What we have built is thanks to Allah and with the help of the 'Qatar Charity' organization", the imam said.
According to the newspaper Libération:
"[W]e are currently witnessing a relative muzzling of the historical partners of Islam in France, Morocco and Algeria. Although they remain opulent donors, maintain close links with the first generations of immigrants and have locked up key positions within the French Council of the Muslim Faith (CFCM), these two countries see their influence diminishing among the youngest [generation]."
"... Qatar operates an insidious, but consensual, entryism, within the Union of Islamic Organizations of France (UOIF), France's representative of the [Muslim] Brotherhood."
"Through the UOIF, Qatar's idea was to take control of Islam in France", says Georges Malbrounot, a reporter at Le Figaro and co-author of the book "Nos très chers émirs" ("Our dear Emirs") about the relations between France and Qatar.
One mosque largely financed by Qatari money is the Assalam Mosque in Nantes.
With its 17-meter-high minaret, large dome rising 14 meters and exterior illumination at night, the Assalam mosque "illuminates the city of Nantes." The mosque apparently answers a real need for the Muslims of the city. The faithful used to pray in the Arrahma Mosque and the El Forqane Mosque (formerly the Saint-Christophe Christian chapel, before it was transformed into an Islamic prayer hall), but Muslim community leaders say they were too small for the community's needs.
Qatari money is also flowing into Mulhouse, an Alsatian city, where Qatar Charity helped to build the An Nour Center, which includes a large mosque -- "one of the most impressive in Europe". The Qatari media described the project:
"The centre is strategically located in the border region of France, Germany and Switzerland, where Muslims constitute more than 20 percent of the total population of the city of 256,000 people. More than 150,000 people from the three countries will benefit from the project".
In Marseille, Qatari money is also financing the future Great Mosque of Marseille that will accommodate between 10,000 and 14,000 worshipers -- in a city that already hosts "about 70 mosques and official prayer rooms," according to the Regional Council of the Muslim Faith. The government of Qatar, in addition, has given millions of euros to the Grand Mosque in Paris.
Among the Persian Gulf states, Qatar now seems to be preeminent in creating Islamic history in France. Bernard Godard, who for years served as a consultant on Islam for the Ministry of the Interior, said: "It cannot be said that Islam in France is financed mainly by Saudi Arabia. It contributes a little but much less than countries such as Qatar or Kuwait". The French scholar, Bérengère Bonte, last year wrote a book entitled, The French Republic of Qatar ("La République française du Qatar").
Qatar has also reportedly helped finance the Saint-Denis campus of the European Institute of Human Sciences (IESH). This private "Muslim University" offers Arabic language and theology courses to post-graduate Muslim students. In fifteen years, its enrollment has grown from 180 students to almost 1,500.
Qatar is, as well, behind France's first state-funded Muslim faith school, the Lycée-Collège Averroès. The school was at the center of a dust-up a few years ago when one of its teachers resigned after writing that the school was "a hotbed of anti-Semitism and was 'promoting Islamism' to pupils". The school is financed by government funding, tuition fees, and donations from the Muslim community. But when it became necessary to buy a new building and renovate it, for 2.5 million euros, the Saudi Arabia Development Bank agreed to pay 250,000 euros, and the NGO Qatar Charity 800,000. According to the newspaper Libération:
"But when it became necessary to buy a new building and renovate it, for 2.5 million euros, the Saudi Arabia Development Bank agreed to pay 250,000 euros, and the NGO Qatar Charity 800,000."
Then there is what is known as "the Great Mosque of Saint-Denis," located in the Paris suburb of Saint-Denis, which has a high concentration of Muslim immigrants. Ahmed Jamaleddine, treasurer of the Amal association, which is behind the construction of the mosque, says: "We have funds from abroad... Everything is transparent: it comes from the faithful of Saudi Arabia and Qatar."
Saint-Denis also happens to be home to a famous Cathedral, the Basilica of Saint-Denis -- which contains the royal necropolis where many of France's kings are buried, including Charles Martel, noted earlier, who stopped the advance of the Muslim army in 732.
The Emir of Qatar appears to have a far greater grasp of French history than many French do. Qatar is a country of which democracies would do well to be wary.
*Giulio Meotti, Cultural Editor for Il Foglio, is an Italian journalist and author.
© 2018 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute.
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/12800/qatar-france-mosques

Does Turkey Belong in the Future of NATO?
هل تنتمي تركيا في المستقبل إلى حلف الناتو؟
Nonie Darwish/Gatestone Institute/August 15/18
http://eliasbejjaninews.com/archives/66771/nonie-darwish-does-turkey-belong-in-the-future-of-nato-%D9%87%D9%84-%D8%AA%D9%86%D8%AA%D9%85%D9%8A-%D8%AA%D8%B1%D9%83%D9%8A%D8%A7-%D9%81%D9%8A-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D8%B3%D8%AA%D9%82%D8%A8%D9%84-%D8%A5/
Loving one's native culture and feeling comfortable in it is normal. Western leaders have respected the rights of new immigrants to love the cultures from which they have come. But unfortunately, those same leaders are tearing apart their own cultures by turning love of one's own country into an unforgivable sin, when it is expressed by native citizens of Western countries. This trend needs to end.
Unless the leadership of Europe decides to stop the transformation of the continent with the same determination expressed by some extremist leaders that appear to want to transform it, its future is all too clear.
Turkey's President Erdogan has been steadily abrogating NATO commitments, such as, "uphold[ing] democracy, including tolerating diversity," and that members "must be good neighbors and respect sovereignty outside their borders."
US President Donald J. Trump tends to state what many in the world are saying but few are willing publicly to express:
"I think allowing millions and millions of people to come into Europe is very, very sad," he recently said. Standing next to UK Prime Minister Teresa May, he stated his conviction that European immigration policies are changing the "fabric of Europe" and destroying European culture.
It is a warning. Europe, in fact, is being flooded with millions of migrants, often from cultures that are openly anti-democratic.
Moreover, some Muslim leaders are encouraging immigrants to resist assimilation into European cultures. Such deliberate non-assimilation has created cultural clashes across Europe.
The reality is that fundamentalist Islamic cultures are, in many ways, at odds with secular Western values.
Regarding NATO, today's flood of immigrants may well eventually try to transform the heart of values and goals – "to safeguard the Allies' freedom and security by political and military means" -- that brought the NATO nations together in the first place.
Such political and cultural transformation of Europe seems quickly to be forming a huge cultural, social and political collision course at odds with European values. Such a possibility should no longer be considered a forbidden subject of "polite" conversation.
The founding NATO members originally came together in 1949 not only because they shared a "common threat" from the Soviet Union after World War II. They also joined forces because they shared cultural, political and economic goals -- and Judeo-Christian, humanistic values, all uniting factors and consistent with the values of NATO.
Loving one's native culture and feeling comfortable in it is normal. Western leaders have respected the rights of new immigrants to love the cultures from which they have come. But unfortunately, those same leaders are tearing apart their own cultures by turning love of one's own country into an unforgivable sin, when it is expressed by native citizens of Western countries. This trend needs to end.
Unless the leadership of Europe decides to stop the transformation of the continent with the same determination expressed by some extremist leaders that appear to want to transform it, its future is all too clear.
If the current trend of Islamization continues, it will not be long before politically correct Europe elects Muslim heads of State who demand adherence to sharia law and tolerance of jihad. Unlikely? Turkey, a NATO member since 1952, when it was a very different Turkey, has been increasingly radicalized for more than a decade by its president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Erdogan has also been steadily abrogating NATO commitments, such as, "uphold[ing] democracy, including tolerating diversity," and that members "must be good neighbors and respect sovereignty outside their borders."
Turkey's democracy has been eroding and is now being called a "hollow democracy."
Tolerating diversity? Consider Turkey's genocide of Armenian Christians, and persecution and expulsions of Greek Christians. Currently, Turkey is holding an American pastor, Andrew Brunson (first in prison and now under house arrest), on charges of "dividing and separating [Turkey], by means of Christianization," as well as false charges of espionage.
In addition, in January 2018, Turkey invaded northwestern Syria and seized the Syrian city of Afrin, an act hardly commensurate with NATO's minimum requirements for membership, which say that member states "must be good neighbors and respect sovereignty outside their borders." Western civilization is at a crossroads. President Trump's warning to Europe could not have come at a more appropriate time. Turkey's recent policies and actions reflect how fragile NATO relations have become, due to the breaking down of the cohesive culture that brought NATO members together in the first place.
If gaps continue to grow between some of NATO's members in matters of cultural identity, values and vision, the US may well have to prepare for an uncertain future with NATO.
Turkey's recent policies and actions reflect how fragile NATO relations have become, due to the breaking down of the cohesive culture that brought NATO members together in the first place. Pictured: NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg meets with the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Turkey, Mevlut Cavusoglu on April 16, 2018 in Turkey. (Image source: NATO/Flickr)
*Nonie Darwish, born and raised in Egypt, is the author of "Wholly Different; Why I Chose Biblical Values Over Islamic Values".
© 2018 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute.
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/12829/does-turkey-belong-in-nato